Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Arch Linux, one of the many open-source distributions based on the free kernel, has been embroiled in controversy after one of the hosts, known as 'Alucard', used an offensive mirror address for one of the packages available to fellow users. However, after this came to light when another user complained, the host responded by saying that his 'freedom of speech' was being suppressed by the complainant.

The domain name 'loli.forsale' prompted a user by the name Florian to complain that a friend was extremely offended by the address, and asked that it be changed immediately. Loli is a term that describes under-aged girls in Hentai, according to Urban Dictionary, which paired with 'for sale' is objectively offensive.

Even though this was changed, he went on to defend this choice by referring to his 'freedom of speech', likening the complaint of the offensive content to oppression. Beyond that, he discussed the time and effort he put into the Arch Linux project. However, this was immaterial to the domain name in question. The defendant had to allegedly obtain professional assistance in his lengthy response due to a disability. His question read as follows:

What does it take to remove all forms of free speech, before it doesn't matter to anyone at all? Please, do ponder that. Take your time. Don't worry about me, and the ISP I'm building in Portugal to maintain Free Software projects, and users with the same kind of principle.

According to a user on Reddit by the name of 'fameistheproduct', this isn't the first time something in the community has offended some users. At one point, the system automatically generated license codes that could be regarded as offensive by some. The offending content has since been removed by the organization.

Source: Reddit | Image via Faster Land

Read this article:
Arch Linux host cites freedom of speech defense, after using offensive domain name - Neowin

When it seems anyone can say or write almost anything and have it published on the internet, recent events offer reminders that the freedom of expression is not universal.

The Financial Times first reported this week that the Chinese government has banned Winnie-the-Poohs likeness and name on social media.

Yes, that Winnie-the-Pooh, the anthropomorphic bear created by author A.A. Milne and digitized by Disney. As USA Today reported in a follow-up: The characters name in Chinese was censored in posts on Sina Weibo, a social media platform similar to Twitter, while a collection of Winnie-the-Pooh gifts vanished from social messaging service WeChat. ... Any attempts to post Poohs Chinese name on Weibo prompted a message: 'Content is illegal.' "

Insiders speculated that government censors acted on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was the subject of an internet meme featuring roly-poly Pooh and his wiry pal Tigger. Those images emerged in 2013 after the stout Xi was photographed with the slender President Barack Obama.

As is often the case, examples of absurd government censorship in China and elsewhere are accompanied by appalling abuses of human rights. Too often one leads to another, or vice versa.

It has been widely reported in the free world that Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recently died in Chinese custody denied access to his wife, who is under house arrest. But Chinese officials who control the media have been on social sites busily blocking news of Lius death and monitoring private conversations.

Liu was in state custody because he had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for writing about and advocating universal values shared by all humankind, including human rights, equality, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Eleven years.

For advocating universal values shared by all humankind.

Horrifying.

China is one of the most populous offenders but hardly alone. We have written previously about Raif Badawi, a blogger who has criticized the entanglement of religion, namely Islam, and government in Saudi Arabia and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes as a result. Considered a foe of the state and the national religion, he remains in custody; little is known about his condition or the extent of the beatings he has suffered.

Examples of repression are everywhere. Credible reports by watchdogs show that 34 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 with evidence that the killings were in retribution for coverage of public- and private-sector corruption. Turkey has recently jailed human-rights advocates.

And, yes, in the United States, there are troubling signs of intolerance: Campus speakers have been threatened and shouted down by political opponents, the tenor of the cultural wars is increasingly hostile and dishonest journalists have been labeled by the president as enemies of the people.

But at least in America we have the First Amendment and its protections, which have seldom seemed more necessary and valuable.

This editorial was originally published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a sister newspaper of the Daily News within GateHouse Media.

Continue reading here:
EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech never more valuable - The Northwest Florida Daily News

RE: AZ Star (7/18/17) - "Opponents of vouchers find funds..." In response to the possibility that groups opposing vouchers are successful in collecting enough signatures to get a petition regarding the vouchers on the 2018 election ballot, state representative Debbie Lesko has a strategy to defeat the voters. She stated that if the referendum drive succeeds and the issue goes to the ballot, the legislature could make changes prior to the election. She explained that that would effectively repeal the current legislation and eliminate a public vote. If the public didn't like the new plan they would have to start the referendum drive all over again.

Such thinking demonstrates a clear disdain for the public exercising its right to free speech through voting. Lesko introduced a large number of bills in an effort to further weaken public education and promote the use of public funds for for-profit schools.

Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.

See original here:
Letter: Lesko shows disdain for citizens' freedom of speech - Arizona Daily Star

The city of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, ended months of debate Monday by eliminating a free speech zone at Veterans Memorial Park, blocking a proposed satanic monument and forcing other religious displays to be removed.

The original intent of providing the public space was to recognize those who have bravely contributed to defending our nation through their military service, city leaders said in a statement. In recent weeks and months, though, that intent has been overshadowed by freedom of speech concerns expressed by both religious and nonreligious communities.

The controversy started in January when the city ordered a Christian-themed statue of a praying soldier to be removed from the city-owned park, fearing a lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The order was met with local backlash, and the Belle Plaine City Council passed a resolution in February designating a free speech zone at the park. That opened the door, however, to all speech, and an application from the Satanic Temple of Salem Massachusetts to erect a satanic monument at the park renewed tensions.

Mondays vote by the City Council rescinds the free speech resolution and blocks the satanic display from ever going up, a local NBC affiliate reported.

The debate between those communities has drawn significant regional and national attention to our city, and has promoted divisiveness among our own residents, the citys statement said. While this debate has a place in public dialogue, it has detracted from our citys original intent of designating a space solely for the purpose of honoring and memorializing military veterans, and has also portrayed our city in a negative light.

Owners of all privately owned displays in Veterans Park were given 10 days to remove them from the property.

See the original post here:
Minnesota city eliminates free speech zone at veterans park, blocking satanic monument - Washington Times

The University of California at Berkeley is again blocking a conservative speaker from coming to the flagship public campus, an advocacy group claimed, threatening the constitutional rights of students.

But university officials said they welcome Ben Shapiro and are just trying to find a large enough, and safe enough, venue for the conservative columnist to speak to students in September.

We think theres a very strong likelihood we can make this work, university spokesman Dan Mogulof said Wednesday evening.

He said university officials are trying to meet with students to talk about it and that efforts to resolve the situation would be better served by a face-to-face meeting than by a public fight in the media.

Berkeley, long known for its liberal-leaning student body and its role in the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, has become a cultural battleground, with pitched fights between far-left and far-right activists.

When Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer who calls himself a free-speech fundamentalist and whom critics call a hatemonger, tried to speak on campus in February,University of California police locked down the campus and canceledthe event after 150 or so black bloc anarchists in masks streamed into a large crowd of peaceful student protesters, breaking windows, setting a propane tank ablaze and attacking police with rocks and firecrackers.

That decision was polarizing: Some saw it as the smothering of conservative thought, an assault on the First Amendment. Others saw it as the only rational response to the imminent threat of dangerous riots.

President Trump jumped into the fray with a tweet the morning after: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

In the months to come, there were violent clashes between far-right and far-left protesters in Berkeley. The Berkeley College Republicans, who had invited Yiannopoulos, asked conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus, and that sparked another fight, as campus officialscanceled the event over safety concerns.

After pushback, they invited her to speak the following week in a safer venue. The Young Americas Foundation and College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the university, claiming it had violated their right to free speech.

Coulter never gave the speech. Protesters swarmed campus anyway.

[Ben Shapiro plans to speak at UC-Berkeley, where clashes have shut down other conservative speakers]

This summer, Berkeley College Republicans, with the help of the conservative advocacy group Young Americas Foundation, invited Shapiro.

University officials said, when they learned of the invitation, that they welcomed him and would work to find a secure site for the speech.

The university continues its shameful tactic of hiding behind vague security concerns, Naweed Tahmas, external vice president of the UC Berkeley College Republicans, wrote in an email Wednesday night.

Most recently, the university police and the administration cited broad concerns that Ann Coulters speaking engagement would spark violent protests.

Ultimately, after massive police presence the day of Ms. Coulters proposed speaking date, the Anti-Fascists and other left-wing groups did not show. In fact, they released an op-ed stating that they had no intentions or plans to disrupt Ann Coulters speaking engagement at UC Berkeley. After canceling our last three events, UC Berkeley has solidified itself as an ideological echo chamber, as only favored viewpoints may be heard on campus with no meaningful opposition or challenge permitted.This is a disservice to students as it is incumbent upon universities to expose students to a breadth of different ideological views.

The Young Americas Foundation announced: Berkeleys inability to find a lecture hall more than two months in advance is laughable.

Ben Shapiro, in a written statement, said, Using ridiculous pretexts to keep conservatives from speaking is unsurprising but disappointing.

Well find a way to get this event done, and UC Berkeley has a moral and legal obligation to ensure we do so.

Mogulof said there are three venues on campus that are free to student groups and large enough to accommodate the event but that they were already booked for that time, so they have asked the student group if another time or a smaller venue would be acceptable or if they would be willing to pay to rent another space.

He said they were hoping to get a better understanding of their request, not through the media but by sitting down to talk about it.

They support the right to have a wide variety of speakers on campus, and freedom of speech, he said.

We want to have this event. he said.

[Trump threatens UC-Berkeleys funding after violent protests shut down a speaker]

[UC-Berkeley readies police, concerned Ann Coulter plans to speak in public plaza on campus]

Continued here:
Berkeley free-speech fight flares up again over Ben Shapiro - The ... - Washington Post

Jul 19, 2017 at 9:58 am | Print View

Tim Bickels July 9 letter Exercise your right to free speech was a completely inaccurate representation of what the freedom of speech truly is.

The impression I got from his letter is that he wanted to be able to say what he wanted whenever he wanted and no one is allowed to respond or be critical of it. Thats not how it works. If you say something that is anti-gay, thats homophobic and you will be told that youre homophobic. If you say something thats discriminatory toward Islam, then yes you are Islamaphobic. Theres a big difference between being critical of something and demonstrating out right hate and bigotry toward it. Being critical of something is dissecting the various points of it and stating why you disagree with it without classifying it in a discriminatory light.

Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to express yourself without interference from the federal government, thats a very basic laymans term definition of it. But that doesnt mean that a person can say something and another person isnt allowed to retort and classify them as what theyre demonstrating when they speak.

My interpretation of what Bickel wanted was to be able to demonstrate discriminatory thinking, but not carry that label along with him. I think he may need to re-examine things.

I wish for people to exercise freedom of speech with the understanding that others will too and if youre discriminatory the First Amendment doesnt protect you from that.

Chandra Jordan

Marion

We make it easy to stay connected:

Visit link:
Letter: What freedom of speech truly is - The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The death of Liu Xiaobo from liver cancer on July 13, under guard at a hospital in Shenyang, marks the passing of a great defender of freedoma man who was willing to speak truth to power.

As the lead signatory to Charter 08, which called for the rule of law and constitutional government, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting the subversion of state power.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Before his sentencing in 2009, Liu stood before the court and declared, To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity, and to suppress the truth.

With proper treatment and freedom, Liu would have lived on to voice his support for a free society.

Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 6, 2017. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

While Lius advocacy of limited government, democracy, and a free market for ideas won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, Chinas leadership viewed him as a criminal and refused to allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award.

Instead, the prize was placed on an empty chair at the ceremony, a lasting symbol of Lius courage in the face of state suppression.

Beijing also prevented liberal Mao Yushi, cofounder of the Unirule Institute, from attending the ceremony to honor Liu.

The mistreatment of Liu, and other human rights proponents, is a stark reminder that while the Middle Kingdom has made significant progress in liberalizing its economy, it has yet to liberate the minds of the Chinese people or its own political institutions.

The tension between freedom and state power threatens Chinas future. As former premier Wen Jiabao warned in a speech in August 2010, Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost. Later, in an interview with CNN in October, he held that freedom of speech is indispensable for any country.

Article 33, Section 3, of the PRCs Constitution holds that the State respects and protects human rights. Such language, added by the National Peoples Congress in 2004, encouraged liberals to test the waters, only to find that the reality did not match the rhetoric.

The Chinese Communist Party pays lip service to a free market in ideas, noting: There can never be an end to the need for the emancipation of individual thought ( China Daily , November 16, 2013).

However, Party doctrine strictly regulates that market. Consequently, under market socialism with Chinese characteristics, there is bound to be an ever-present tension between the individual and the state.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2015), President Xi argued that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom.

The real meaning of that statement is that Chinas ruling elite will not tolerate dissent: individuals will be free to communicate ideas, but only those consistent with the states current interpretation of socialist principles.

This socialist vision contrasts sharply with that of market liberalism, which holds that freedom is not the purpose of order; it is the essential means to an emergent or spontaneous order. In the terms of traditional Chinese Taoism, freedom is the source of order.

Simply put, voluntary exchange based on the principle of freedom or nonintervention, which Lao Tzu called wu wei , expands the range of choices open to individuals.

Denying Chinas 1.4 billion people a free market in ideas has led to one of the lowest rankings in the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters without Borders.

In the 2016 report, China ranked 176 out of 180 countries, only a few notches above North Koreaand the situation appears to be getting worse. Under President Xi Jinpings consolidation of power in preparation for this years Party Congress, the websites of liberal think tanks, such as the Unirule Institute, have been shut down, and virtual private networks (VPNs) are being closed, preventing internet users from circumventing the Great Firewall.

Lius death is a tragic reminder that China is still an authoritarian regime whose leaders seek to hold onto power at the cost of the lives of those like Liu who seek only peace and harmony through limiting the power of government and safeguarding individual rights.

James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal , senior fellow, and director of Catos annual monetary conference.

See the original post:
What Liu Xiaobo's Grisly Prison Death Tells Us About Free Speech in Xi's China - Newsweek

Michigan State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, is the leading sponsor for the Campus Free Speech Act, a proposed bill that would restrict certain kinds of protesting on Michigan college campuses. Students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others, would either be suspended for a year or expelled permanently.

Colbeck says that the bill would allow speakers to visit campuses without being disrupted by students who disagree with their views, referring to when author and commentator Ann Coulter canceled her speaking engagement at the University of California, Berkley, because of pushback from students.

The CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, Dan Hurley, said that such instances are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university." He does not believe there is a problem with free speech or expression at colleges, he said.

Michigan's 15 public universities and 28 community colleges would adopt the rules set out by the bill, and would also abolish free speech zones. In May, Sen. Colbeck said, Ultimately, theres people that are just trying to shut down any discussion of issues that they dont agree with.

Michigan students are split on the bill, some thinking that it would infringe on their own free speech rights. Vikrant Garg is a graduate student at the University of Michigan and helped found Students4Justice, a group for students of color at UM who organize to target inequities on our campus.

What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech, Garg said.

This bill, and the people that make these decisions, including the police who are used to enforce these policies operate under a framework in which they can silence us and inflict violence against us with no consequences. They can inflict violence against us for speaking out."

Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University in Saint Louis and a free speech expert, says that colleges should address the issue on their campuses individually.

Nancy Schmitz, dean of students and assistant vice president of student affairs at Oakland University said, Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with the latest legislation being proposed.

Some faculty members believe the bill is unnecessary. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that rates speech codes on campuses, rules restricting or limiting free speech already exist on Michigan's public university campuses.

Ultimately, the legislation could promote an atmosphere of discussion and civil debate. Sen. Colbeck said, "if campus leaders believe some speech creates a safety concern because of unruly audience members wishing to use violence, they must police those who would break the law in order to stifle free speech, ... intellectual freedom on our campuses must not be bullied into silence."

Women's March Organizer Labels CNN's Tapper 'Alt Right' for Calling Out Her Group

What McConnell Said When He Was Asked to Justify Health Care Failure to Voters

See the original post:
Michigan Students Object to Campus Free Speech Bill - Townhall

MSU graduate Alex Bissell protests convervative columnist George Wills commencement address in 2014.(Photo: Max Ortiz / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

A pair of bills introduced in the Legislature that seek the suspension or expulsion of outspoken students are causing a stir at Michigans universities.

Critics say the proposed measures could hinder student activism. However, the main sponsor, state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, says the Campus Free Speech Act ensures invited campus speakers have their voices heard.

It makes sure they arent able to shout down the speaker, he said. Ideally, I think it would be nice to have engagement in debate if they are willing to have a civil debate on the topic. ... If that doesnt happen, they could hold their own forum.

The legislation would apply to Michigans 15 public universities and 28 community colleges. Institutions would be required to suspend for one year or expel students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others.

The measures also would eliminate free speech zones that designate where students can engage in expressive activity on campus.

Opponents say the proposals would infringe on free speech, not protect it.

This is a very tricky situation, said Vikrant Garg, 21, a graduate student studying public health at the University of Michigan. What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech.

Garg, a co-founder of Students4justice, a coalition for students of color, said the legislation could drive away any kind of dissent.

Theres so many applications of this bill, its so far reaching it could apply to almost everybody, he said. Thats what makes it even more dangerous.

Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said the measures are intrusive and unnecessary.

Its a solution in search of a problem, Hurley said. The freedom of speech and expression are not an issue at Michigans post-secondary institutions. There have been some anecdotal incidents that youve probably read about that proponents would refer to. These are often incidents that are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university.

Fostering discussion

Colbeck pointed to the cancellation earlier this year of a planned speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley. University officials said threats of violence made it impossible to guarantee security at the event.

A Philadelphia-based group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has found that Michigans public universities already have speech code policies that substantially restrict freedom of speech or have the ability to result in restrictions on protected expression because of their vague wording or for other reasons. The group annually rates the speech codes for the 400 of the nations largest universities and colleges.

FIRE found problems with protecting speech at all 15 Michigan public universities. Six universities, including the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and its Dearborn and Flint campuses as well as Wayne State, had at least one policy that substantially restricts the freedom of speech, according to FIRE.

The other nine universities, including Michigan State and Oakland universities, had policies that restricted a more limited amount of free speech or whose vague wording could easily be used to restrict protected expression, the nonprofit said.

Grant Strobl, a 21-year-old international studies and political science major at UM, supports the legislation, saying it would require universities to remove protesters who interfere with events.

Its something that needs to be addressed not only in Michigan, but across the country, said Strobl, chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a campus conservative group. Its not a perfect bill. Im sure there will be changes. ... I think its a step in the right direction.

He concluded: Its unfortunate that some students have the mentality that if they dont agree with certain speech, they can shout down the speaker and silence them.

As an example, Strobl said he saw hundreds of shouting protesters stop a debate last September at UM about whether the Black Lives Matter movement harms race relations. The event was hosted by Michigan Political Union, an independent student organization.

I feel like a lot of what is important in the democracy was lost that day, he said. We werent able to have a discussion on relevant political issues. Theres no better place to do that than the university.

The legislation in Michigan follows action by Republican lawmakers in several other states to crack down on protesters who disrupt speakers at post-secondary institutions.

In Wisconsin, for example, lawmakers are weighing a bill that would penalize protesters who disrupt speakers. The issue is now before the state Senate.

UMs student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, wrote an editorial last month opposing Colbecks legislation. Officials at some state universities also have expressed reservations.

Targeted limits

Michigan State University spokesman Jason Cody said that while the school has not taken an official position on the legislation, officials are concerned about the bills and share the some of the objections raised by MASU.

Here at MSU, we encourage our students and faculty members to bring in speakers and events, regardless if they are deemed controversial by some, Cody said. By the same token, we encourage our campus community to make their viewpoints known on issues they are passionate about. In all of that, though, we ask both sides of any issue to be respectful and follow MSU ordinances.

Oakland University officials say campus policy has always protected the rights of student groups and outside organizations that gather in a peaceful manner.

Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events, said Nancy Schmitz, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with this latest legislation being proposed.

Free speech expert Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he doesnt mind the parts of the bills that reiterate the values of the First Amendment. However, he considers certain areas problematic.

Why single out protests and demonstrations? he said. If I recall correctly, those terms arent even defined in the statute. So this bill, which is supposed to be a free-speech bill, is putting a particular kind of limit on certain kinds of free speech, so-called protests and demonstrations.

Magarian said the legislation could be interpreted as banning all forms of protest.

The effect of that passage would seem to be that a protest or demonstration can be shut down if it interferes with any other kind of expressive activity, he said. I dont know of any kind of protest that doesnt interfere with other kinds of expressive activity.

Magarian said the bills mandatory penalties of a one-year suspension or expulsion for second-time offenders create a conflict for universities. He said hes inclined to think its better for universities to figure the issue out themselves.

One thing that might backfire about the provision is that its a pretty severe sanction, he said. The mandate of that sanction might well encourage universities in disciplinary proceedings to go easier on disruptors than they would if they had less severe penalties to dish out. ... That would cut against what this legislation is trying to do.

cwilliams@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2311

Twitter: @CWilliams_DN

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2vwkVyV

Read the rest here:
Campus free speech bills: Restrict or protect rights? - The Detroit News

James Madison, prime drafter of the Bill of Rights, would be appalled to find marauding mobs curbing speakers, but not surprised. This and much more that illuminates todays struggle over freedom of speech is the subject of a compact volume, The Soul of the First Amendment, by legendary First Amendment constitutional scholar Floyd Abrams.

Abrams traces the two-century history of the First Amendment, from its creation in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, three years after ratification of the Constitution (which took nearly a year after its publication by the Framers of Philadelphia), The Framers were disinclined to adopt a Bill of Rights, whose protections they regarded as implicit in the text of the Constitution. Framer Roger Sherman of Connecticut said of bills of rights: No bill of rights ever yet bound the supreme power longer than longer than the honey moon [sic]of a newly married couple. Fortunately, Mr. Madison prevailed over such skepticism.

Abrams cites the mid-century historian Clinton Rossiter, who described the 1787 Constitution as plain to the point of severity, frugal to the point of austerity, laconic to the point of aphorism. Madison stated that the great object of bills of rights is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. Madison believed courts would act as an impenetrable barrier to infringement of speech. But speech is now under a sustained assault not seen since the 1798 Sedition Act saw more than 20 newspaper editors jailed by President John Adams.

Because Abrams covers only the First Amendment, he ignores the Courts seminal Bill of Rights case prior to 1925, the year the Supreme Court began to selectively incorporate clauses, thus applying them to the States. Until then the case that defined its ambit was Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which Chief Justice John Marshall, our most influential Justice, authored the Courts opinion holding that the Bill of Rights limited only the powers of the federal government. Indeed, it was not until 1939 (NOT a misprint) that the final trio of the original 13 colonies Massachusetts (Mar. 2), Georgia (Mar. 18) and Connecticut (Apr. 19) ratified the document many consider our true fundamental charter. This view is widely held because the Constitutions text focuses on definition and distribution of powers, many arcane to non-lawyers; the first ten amendments collectively called the Bill of Rights is a charter that mostly defines substantive constitutional rights, to many our secular Ten Commandments.

Abrams offers six chapters: (1) the history of free speech and the First Amendment over the past 226 years; (2) comparison of free speech protection between America and the other Western democracies; (3) how English free speech law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision; (4) comparison of relative protection of a right to be forgotten; (5) comparison of regulation of spending in political campaigns; (6) free speech issues that evade legislative and jurisprudential solution.

Abrams notes two emerging, divergent views on free speech protections. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent as to free speech protection in the landmark 2010 Citizens United decision: The First Amendment advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving democratic order in which collective speech matters. (Italics in original.) As rebuttal, Abrams cited Chief Justice Roberts in a later election free speech case, that the will of the majority plainly can include laws that restrict free speech. The whole point of the First Amendment is to afford individuals protection against such infringements. The case for new curbs on speech was carried further by former Harvard Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan, who identified opposing visions of free speech: one protects only such speech as is perceived to advance political equality by protecting designated rights holders; the other is negative, and bars the government from restricting speech, with a few very narrow exceptions. Sullivan supports the former, while Abrams supports the latter. Abrams follows the Framers; Sullivan, postmodern jurisprudential values.

The dominant limitation of speech from the founding into the 1920s was censorship. Only with the jurisprudence of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis did protection of free speech, however unpopular, came to the fore. It was only in 1925 that the Frist Amendment was applied to the states; and not until 1965 NOT a misprint did the Supreme Court rely upon the First Amendment to strike down a federal statute.

Abrams is very effective in contrasting the great degree to which speech remains protected in America, versus its creeping strangulation in Europe. Prime culprits are rulings by national courts and administrative tribunals, plus pan-European international bodies. He cites several recent decisions that would not have been made on our side of the Pond. Speakers have been convicted for such offenses as calling for an end to Muslim immigration (Britain, Belgium); for putting ones country first (Britain and Belgium again); and attacking Christianity (Poland). But it is criticism of Islam that is most ferociously punished today. Dutch parliamentarian and unsuccessful candidate for prime minister Geert Wilders was convicted for giving speeches calling for an end to Islamicization in Holland. This is the steep price of multicultural political correctness.

Another landmark protection for American speakers and writers came with passage of laws preventing enforcement against Americans of libel judgments issued by European courts; militant Islamist plaintiffs had targeted authors whose works sold only a few copies overseas, suing in England rather than in the U.S., to take advantage of European speech laws. Abrams counts 23 nations in the European Union that have criminal libel laws, with 20 of them including imprisonment penalties; several have laws calling for greater punishment for libeling public officials.

In one major area even a free speech libertarian like Abrams draws at least a partial line: national security. He recounts that during the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (in which a massive archive of Vietnam war decision-making was published by the New York Times and the Washington Post) the Times withheld certain classified details. Earlier, in the 1950s the Times learned that the CIA was conducting secret reconnaissance overflights of the Soviet Union, and elected not to publish. Rampant disclosure of sensitive classified information is now close to a journalistic norm. While such may prevent abuses, which undeniably exist, they can also damage national security sources and methods regarding intelligence collection, for example.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is the growing trend towards suppressing speech by resort to mass violence. Violence is contagious, if unchecked. Democrats were silent when Madonna said on Inauguration Day that she imagined the White House exploding; when a rapper posted a video imagining President Trump being assassinated; and some even defended the profanation of a Julius Caesar Shakespeare in the Park production in which Caesar dressed as Trump was stabbed to death. Such attitudes spawn violence not only against the right. California Democrats, much to their surprise, have received death threats from members of their hardcore leftist base, warning them not to cede to President Trump on health care.

Many remember vividly the tragic and terrifying events leading up to November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was gunned down. For at least a year before that ghastly Friday of November 22, right-wing extremists had openly preached violence against the president. The contagion had spread, but a radical leftist was the assassin. Violent and hateful rhetoric, far from being tamped down, escalated though the massively destructive race riots of 1964-1968. The wave crested with the spring 1968 murders of Martin Luther King by a white racist, and of Senator Robert Kennedy by a Palestinian terrorist.

In what Abrams terms an historical irony the protections of the Bill of Rights have most often been invoked on behalf of leftist dissenters, yet it is the hardcore left that today aggressively moves to curtail such protections for speakers on the right. It was said of the French Revolution that in the end it, like the Roman deity Saturn, ultimately devoured its own children. Todays myriad leftist practitioners and the few of their ilk on the right of intellectual thuggee might do well to ponder this.

The death of free speech would mark the demise of the American republic, tossing the Constitution into historys ash heap. It would be a terrifying triumph for totalitarians everywhere. Either we let speech run free, or we let the sensitivities of listeners (and readers) delimit what we may lawfully say. To prefer the latter is to empower most those who will most vociferously impose their sensitivities to silence others. They will always be the most extreme among us. And then we will have the least freedom of speech when we need most the broadest freedom to speak.

Follow this link:
Free Speech 2017 At War With the Framers of 1787 - American Spectator